Amanda Feldman1, Kimberly W Hart2, Christopher J Lindsell2, Jason T McMullan3. 1. Northeast Ohio Medical University, Akron, OH. 2. University of Cincinnati Department of Emergency Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 3. University of Cincinnati Department of Emergency Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. Electronic address: jason.mcmullan@uc.edu.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE:Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel frequently use the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to assess injured and critically ill patients. This study assesses the accuracy of EMS providers' GCS scoring, as well as the improvement in GCS score assessment with the use of a scoring aid. METHODS: This randomized, controlled study was conducted in the emergency department (ED) of an urban academic trauma center. Emergency medical technicians or paramedics who transported a patient to the ED were randomly assigned one of 9 written scenarios, either with or without a GCS scoring aid. Scenarios were created by consensus of expert attending emergency medicine, EMS, and neurocritical care physicians, with universal consensus agreement on GCS scores. χ(2) And Student's t tests were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Of 180 participants, 178 completed the study. Overall, 73 of 178 participants (41%) gave a GCS score that matched the expert consensus score. GCS score was correct in 22 of 88 (25%) cases without the scoring aid. GCS was correct in 51 of 90 (57%) cases with the scoring aid. Most (69%) of the total GCS scores fell within 1 point of the expert consensus GCS score. Differences in accuracy were most pronounced in scenarios with a correct GCS score of 12 or below. Subcomponent accuracy was eye 62%, verbal 70%, and motor 51%. CONCLUSION: In this study, 60% of EMS participants provided inaccurate GCS score estimates. Use of a GCS scoring aid improved accuracy of EMS GCS score assessments.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel frequently use the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) to assess injured and critically illpatients. This study assesses the accuracy of EMS providers' GCS scoring, as well as the improvement in GCS score assessment with the use of a scoring aid. METHODS: This randomized, controlled study was conducted in the emergency department (ED) of an urban academic trauma center. Emergency medical technicians or paramedics who transported a patient to the ED were randomly assigned one of 9 written scenarios, either with or without a GCS scoring aid. Scenarios were created by consensus of expert attending emergency medicine, EMS, and neurocritical care physicians, with universal consensus agreement on GCS scores. χ(2) And Student's t tests were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Of 180 participants, 178 completed the study. Overall, 73 of 178 participants (41%) gave a GCS score that matched the expert consensus score. GCS score was correct in 22 of 88 (25%) cases without the scoring aid. GCS was correct in 51 of 90 (57%) cases with the scoring aid. Most (69%) of the total GCS scores fell within 1 point of the expert consensus GCS score. Differences in accuracy were most pronounced in scenarios with a correct GCS score of 12 or below. Subcomponent accuracy was eye 62%, verbal 70%, and motor 51%. CONCLUSION: In this study, 60% of EMS participants provided inaccurate GCS score estimates. Use of a GCS scoring aid improved accuracy of EMS GCS score assessments.
Authors: Eileen M Bulger; Susanne May; Karen J Brasel; Martin Schreiber; Jeffrey D Kerby; Samuel A Tisherman; Craig Newgard; Arthur Slutsky; Raul Coimbra; Scott Emerson; Joseph P Minei; Berit Bardarson; Peter Kudenchuk; Andrew Baker; Jim Christenson; Ahamed Idris; Daniel Davis; Timothy C Fabian; Tom P Aufderheide; Clifton Callaway; Carolyn Williams; Jane Banek; Christian Vaillancourt; Rardi van Heest; George Sopko; J Steven Hata; David B Hoyt Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Neeraj Badjatia; Nancy Carney; Todd J Crocco; Mary Elizabeth Fallat; Halim M A Hennes; Andrew S Jagoda; Sarah Jernigan; Peter B Letarte; E Brooke Lerner; Thomas M Moriarty; Peter T Pons; Scott Sasser; Thomas Scalea; Charles L Schleien; David W Wright Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2008 Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Daniel P Davis; Jennifer A Serrano; Gary M Vilke; Michael J Sise; Frank Kennedy; A Brent Eastman; Thomas Velky; David B Hoyt Journal: J Trauma Date: 2006-05
Authors: Eelco F M Wijdicks; William R Bamlet; Boby V Maramattom; Edward M Manno; Robyn L McClelland Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Florence C M Reith; Ruben Van den Brande; Anneliese Synnot; Russell Gruen; Andrew I R Maas Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Daniel W Spaite; Bentley J Bobrow; Samuel M Keim; Bruce Barnhart; Vatsal Chikani; Joshua B Gaither; Duane Sherrill; Kurt R Denninghoff; Terry Mullins; P David Adelson; Amber D Rice; Chad Viscusi; Chengcheng Hu Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Joshua B Gaither; Daniel W Spaite; Bentley J Bobrow; Samuel M Keim; Bruce J Barnhart; Vatsal Chikani; Duane Sherrill; Kurt R Denninghoff; Terry Mullins; P David Adelson; Amber D Rice; Chad Viscusi; Chengcheng Hu Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 5.721